515
Gameplay mechanics were also a lot better with more replayability. (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 weeks ago by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/13809164

Ignoring the lack of updates if the game is buggy, games back then were also more focused on quality and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money. I can't count the number of times I played Metal Gear Solid games over and over to unlock new features playing the hardest difficulty and with handicap features, and also to find Easter eggs. Speaking of Easter eggs, you'd lose a number of hours exploring every nook and cranny finding them!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Nostalgia makes us lie to ourselves.

Have you ever noticed that almost all of the retro games worth playing happen to be the ones you played back in the day? But the games you didn't play don't hold up? What a crazy coincidence.

Game design is better today than it has ever been, and it keeps improving. All those old mechanics still exist. You just don't have to slog through hours of bullshit to get to them anymore. Unless that's what you want, in which case that is also available.

If you want a manual, play Tunic. If you want punishing difficulty, play Hollow Knight. If you want to delve into new games with unknown mechanics that you figure out as you go, play UFO 50. There are so many options, and you never need to see a microtransaction unless you want to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Most of the games I liked back in the day don't really hold up, though. Like, I loved the NES version of Strider back then; it had a strange and intriguing plot, I loved the trappings of the dragon-shaped space station and the plasma sword and the magnetic boots that let you walk on the ceiling, and I was a total sucker for any hint of metroidvania-type progression. But when I try to play it now, I notice the controls are awful, the collision detection is janky, the level designs are dull, and the "triangle jump" is nearly unusable.

    Whereas I tried Clash at Demonhead, and that's surprisingly decent. A little simplistic, sure, and it bogs down as you get further into it, but it's pretty amusing. Same with Guardian Legend: I can't get through it, but I can definitely see the appeal. Edit: it may have been clear from context, but these are ones I didn't play back in my youth.

    I do love indie stuff, though. I just played through Alwa's Legacy, and that one is quite good. (Some people might find it too easy, but I tend to appreciate that at this point. I don't have the reflexes I once did.)

    So I tend to agree that there's still great stuff around. I just don't think nostalgia is the whole story with retro games. I think a lot of it has to do with the retro games being the work of a big studio, even though the mechanics today would be relegated to an indie studio. There are subtle ways that affects the experience, that I think people are unconsciously aware of.

    But yeah, there are great games out there today, especially on PC.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    I think your nostalgia period being in the NES era might just be too early. Successive attempts at an idea in any medium often fall into the following pattern:

    Attempt one is explorative and clunky with no pre-existing material close enough to the target idea to draw reference from. The second now having hindsight fixes the most glaring issues from the first. The third and beyond do the same, but with very diminishing returns as most of the available improvement space was already claimed by the second release, which then becomes the nostalgia sweet spot where the familiarity vs. missing QoL ratio peaks.

    My favorite game from my childhood is probably Age of Empires II, and that holds up well enough to still have a massive active community around it. Note that it's a second release.

    The "sweet spot on release two" thing is probably also the reason for the very real "Valve can't count to three" thing. Valve's developers have generally been more interested in mechanics and technical innovation than storytelling, so they lose motivation to continue after a second release knocks out most of the available improvement they can do, even if the last release leaves a story unfinished.

    Edit: Just to be clear, I know I'm not really replying to the main point you were making. AoE2 being a big studio release even adds to it. I don't think anyone has mentioned the whole survivor bias angle either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Yeah, despite some of the stuff happening in the AAA and hardware spaces, we're still in the golden age of gaming. I have a few favorite games from the 90s, but if I had to pick between everything released prior to 10 years ago and everything already released since, I'd still go with the latter without hesitating. I feel sad for anyone not finding enough new hits to feel the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent